Category Archives: Donkeys and Elephants

Post navigation

The idea of the government “competing” with private business is kind of nonsensical. It’s not a “fair fight” so to speak, and utterly pulls the rug out from under the private business owner.

Your example, of higher education, does NOT work quite well at all! (And I hardly think it is the only American asset the rest of the world still envies, but that’s another discussion.) First of all, the most elite universities and colleges in this country are private and attended by (basically) only the very wealthy and/or (smaller numbers) the very bright. Damn few public universities/colleges can compete for those most elite students. Those of you who have your shorts tied in a knot about class warfare should not like this system at all. What’s more, the government being in the education business “ups” the price for everyone. Your tax dollars subsidizing UCLA means that tuition at USC is going to have to be way higher. I agree that this is a good example, but it’s a good example of why government “competition” is a bad idea.

You overstate the demographics of elite schools, But still, those with their “shorts in a knot” are fine with the issue you raise about private school enrollment, because they feel that the great mass of non-wealthy and non-genius students are still getting a chance to go to good colleges, thanks to the taxes that reflect a society’s shared commitment.

True free-market people don’t seem to fear being “undercut” by the public sector. They like competing with each other and especially with the public sector, since they believe entrepreneurs with a profit motive will always find ways to do things better and cheaper than bloated government bureaucracies who lack a profit motive.

Thus, I’m puzzled by this statement you make: “Your tax dollars subsidizing UCLA means that tuition at USC is going to have to be way higher.”

Huh? You’re saying that, if a public school uses tax money to keep tuition low enough to allow large numbers of average Joes and Janes to attend, then a private school will have to charge more than it would otherwise…? Wouldn’t a private school instead have to be entrepreneurial in providing better service than publics, at the most affordable tuition rate possible?

If there were no publics, and no shared national commitment to higher education, Stanford could easily become a for-profit corporation and bleed the world’s wealthiest families to the tune of $200,000 a year, while scholarshipping a few geniuses of lesser means, and letting everyone else go to rot. But if UC Berkeley offers a high-quality, state-supported educational experience without any need to turn a profit, and Cal State Northridge offers an affordable and solid education to tens of thousands, Stanford has to maintain a realistic price in order to keep the right mix of market share. That works for everyone’s interests, in education, health, etc. It reflects a great American belief that it’s crucial for our nation to keep the market from pricing essential resources out of the reach of the common man.

Life in America isn’t about being totally Social Darwinist or totally communist. In America, it’s about having a free market with some limited, smart public oversight that reflects collective commitments — with some of those major commitments being provided directly by Uncle Sam. Even Ronald Reagan believed that. When he said, “Government is the problem,” he indicated that it needed to be reformed, not discarded. That’s what his progeny don’t get.

Finally, for now, one of the reasons that we can’t un-do public K-12 education is because they point out, plausibly, that private schools would be quicker to boot out the laggards. Our great nation’s promise to provide universal education would fall by the wayside (how do you and our free-marketers here really feel about that promise, by the way….?)

Going back to political trends, I think this is a credible assessment from the liberal Center for American Progress — and it addresses long-term issues that aren’t being addressed or even acknowledged by American conservatives.

Today, more than two-thirds of Americans rate a “progressive” approach to politics favorably, a 25-point increase in favorability over the last five years, with gains coming primarily from those who were previously unaware of the term. “Progressive” now equals “conservative” in terms of overall public favorability (67 percent, respectively). The continuing strength of the conservative brand–if not all of its constitutive ideas–reflects the long-term success of the conservative movement over decades. Despite electoral setbacks and larger proportions of Americans now adhering to progressive ideas about governance and society, the conservative worldview remains appealing to many Americans and creates important cleavages in the electorate, particularly on key cultural and national security beliefs….

But unless and until conservatives recognize the depth of affinity between President Obama’s ideological approach and that of the American electorate, conservative ideas likely will remain in secondary status… Notably, the ideological areas of greatest consensus among Americans are all key priorities and investment targets of President Obama: renewable energy; education, science, and infrastructure; universal health care; financial support for the least well-off; public interest regulations; and reductions in inequality financed by increased taxes on the wealthy…

[P]rogressive attitudes about government and economics are particularly strong among those under the age of 30, suggesting the potential for further strengthening of progressivism within the electorate.

I know it may be hard for some of you to buy that Americans worry about the poor or about income inequality, but you again have to go back to the polling that shows that even the majority of America’s wealthy are willing to pay higher taxes in order to address the issues mentioned above.

And this piece above doesn’t even give much attention to an emerging culture of environmental stewardship among the millennials, which is boring or anathema to today’s conservatives and libertarians. Again, these kids may change drastically in ten years, but given the shake-up of the economy and their short-term prospects, they may go on to create a radically different culture than that of their more conservative parents.

Holy cow, the unaccomplished Robert Gates made this list of best leaders.

The reflexive Obama bashers on this site will say that the MSM only listed him in order to inflate Obama’s phony rep for bipartisanship. When they’re reminded that this list was made before Obama picked Gates to stay on, they’ll just go back to threatening to stay at home if taxes are raised on people who are much richer than they.

Earl has argued in the past that the White House has been in error, strategically, in framing itself as being in a battle against Rush Limbaugh, as Earl feels this has been boosting Limbaugh’s standing and ratings.

But I think Dick Cheney’s public support of Limbaugh and castigation of moderates like Colin Powell, noted here, is exactly why the White House is delighted by the “us against Rush” approach. The GOP will win national elections when they include people who aren’t just ardently pro-life and pro-torture and anti-progressive, and Colin Powell is one of the few people who can model the kind of big tent that the GOP needs. So Cheney is now as happilly hapless an aide to the White House as Rush has been.

Democrats’ strategy may to be to draw conservative zealots to the precipice and dare them to take flight; and once they’ve fallen, Dems will then have a greater chance to work with the moderates. The strategy does have risks, though.

Two kinds of Republicans fascinate me right now. The unapologetic activists and the reflective guys. David Brooks is the latter. See here:

Today, if Republicans had learned the right lessons from the Westerns, or at least John Ford Westerns, they would not be the party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice. They would once again be the party of community and civic order.

They would begin every day by reminding themselves of the concrete ways people build orderly neighborhoods, and how those neighborhoods bind a nation. They would ask: What threatens Americans’ efforts to build orderly places to raise their kids? ….

The party sometimes seems cut off from the concrete relationships of neighborhood life. Republicans are so much the party of individualism and freedom these days that they are no longer the party of community and order. This puts them out of touch with the young, who are exceptionally community-oriented. It gives them nothing to say to the lower middle class, who fear that capitalism has gone haywire. It gives them little to say to the upper middle class, who are interested in the environment and other common concerns.

The Republicans talk more about the market than about society, more about income than quality of life. They celebrate capitalism, which is a means, and are inarticulate about the good life, which is the end. They take things like tax cuts, which are tactics that are good in some circumstances, and elevate them to holy principle, to be pursued in all circumstances.

…well, online versions of the dinosaurs. See here. Not much reason to believe that “fair and balanced” outlets have gashed the establishment boys. it goes back to my point that the people who decry an MSM agenda constitute a hyperpartisan minority, not the, um, silent majority of America.

Nice piece here by Peggy Noonan, who seems in recent years to wake up each new morning in agony over her party and her nation:

A great party cannot live by constantly subtracting, by removing or shunning those who are not faithful to every aspect of its beliefs, or who don’t accept every pole, or who are just barely fitting under the tent. Room should be made for them….

In the party now there is too much ferocity, and bloody-mindedness. The other day Sen. Jim DeMint said he’s rather have 30 good and reliable conservative senators than 60 unreliable Republicans. Really? Good luck stopping an agenda you call socialist with 30 hardy votes….

Republicans are trying to find themselves during a time of dramatic, rolling change, demographic change, younger voters who seem embarrassed to be associated with them, an aging and contracting base and, perhaps most ominously, what appears to be a new national openness to a redefinition of the relationship between the government and the governed.

Ronald Reagan famously switched parties decades ago, saying he didn’t leave the Democrats, they left him. That’s a little far-fetched for a supply-side guy who said he worshipped the New Dealer FDR. But Arlen Specter now says something similar:

“Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right,” he said in a statement released early Tuesday afternoon. “Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”

That may be far-fetched too. He was always a liberal Republican. Yet he’s a liberal Republican who says the Big Tent has squeezed him out. Is this a good thing for the GOP….?

Gail-T asks if Obama would have shaken Mussolini’s or Stalin’s hand. Well, we do know that Churchill did. He wrote in 1927, “I could not help being charmed by Signor Mussolini’s gentle and simple bearing, and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers.” Many Depression-era Americans admired the Italian’s effectiveness. As for Stalin, wasn’t he Churchill’s and America’s invaluable ally in opposing Hitler…?

Hawks have squawked about Obama’s humble international tone, which did seem like a good idea when the previous president advocated it. One Hoover Institution fellow railed against Obama’s conciliatory tone in last week’s Wall Street Journal; but I soon found another article by this scholar just a year ago in which he preached the need for America to be more gracious and friendly to other nations.

I’ve left a message for him asking what he really believes and when he believes it. But I suspect such persons ridicule civility only when it’s modeled by someone they don’t like. This seems as much about envy as about geopolitical strategy.